> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> Sent: Friday, 2009 November 06 16:20
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Changes checked in to son-of-3023
>
> Hello public-xml-core-wg,
>
> Following our productive meeting yesterday, I have edited in the
> changes we agreed and the result is available at
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html
>
> (xml and text versions also available).
>
> Please check that the wording in section 5 is as we agreed
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/latest.html#frag
s/fragement/fragment/g in the first para of section 5
(two occurrences).
---
Though I don't feel strongly about this, the first para
has two occurrences of "may" that are not 2119 MAYs.
Since the meaning here is really one of possibility,
not permission, I suggest changing those two occurrences
to "can".
---
delete the inappropriate comma in the third sentence
of the second para. (See below for a suggested replacement
for this sentence.)
---
In the last sentence of the 4th para, I'm not sure the
phrase "such as the xmlns scheme and other schemes" is
really necessary, but if we are going to mention the
xmlns scheme, I would thing we should add it to
Informative references and have a link to the reference.
(I know I made a previous comment about removing the
reference from the Normative References.)
---
The second para says that XpointerFramework allows
"simple names" and the fourth para talks about
supporting "barenames". In fact, the term "barename"
was only used in pre-Rec versions of the spec; the
current term is "shorthand pointer". I suggest the
third sentence of the 2nd para be augmented to read:
It allows simple names (called shorthand pointers) as well
as more complex constructions based on named schemes.
and then the reference to "barenames" in the 4th para
should be changed to "shorthand pointers" (without the
quotes).
---
With this version, we have gone from disallowing use of
xpointer schemes besides shorthand pointer and element()
to allowing anything that matches the framework syntax
(albeit with a "should not" for unregistered schemes).
Now that our wording allows use of other xpointer schemes
besides those that are XPointer W3C Recommendations, I would
prefer to see a warning about using other xpointer schemes.
After all, there are tons of "registered" schemes that will
not be universally supported. (There are 18 schemes just
for wsdl in the registry.)
Therefore, I would like to see a sentence such as the following
added to paragraph three:
Because applications are not required to support schemes other
than the 'element' scheme, use of other schemes can reduce
universal interoperability; such use SHOULD be carefully
considered in each case.
Or some other such wording. URI resolution is such an integral
part of the web, and I don't want people expecting that they can
use any of the 18 WSDL schemes (or any of the others in the
registry) with the same expectations of support as using a
shorthand pointer.
paul